I agree with Celso in this sentiment. For example, the MLC consists of about 102 union who pay a dues to belong to this umbrella organization whose job was to unite labor unions in solidarity in collective bargaining. To form "one big union" to set a standard and not pit one union against the other but creating a wall of unionists moving forward. Instead, they pit the few largest unions against the others, and unions vote on issues that do not even affect them. If union members voices were allowed to be heard more, could Michael Mulgrew or Henry Garrido really cast the full weighted vote of their membership in these meetings? at one vote for every 250 members, if half the UFT dissented with Mulgrew, he could not cast the full weighted vote. And for that matter, why doesn't the MLC reveal publicly WHO are the unions in the MLC and what the weighted vote of each is? I mean, isn't that how its supposed to be done under Robert's Rules of Order? "ROLLCALL! UFT - 480 Votes. How do you Vote - Aye or Nay?" But they NEVER do that. And of course, they never poll their members for their position on the issue. Actually, most aren't even aware. But Mulgrew casts the full vote. Oh, and is his vote really 480? (for the 119,955 active workers, or is he including his 70,000 retirees? Asking for a friend...
Member engagement matters. It is critical to union survival. If you don't properly strengthen your union, NY will start to look like Florida where the unions are being decimated by anti-union companies and politicians. NY used to be a strong union town - let's remember why.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
